5 ms·
The prosecution has every incentive to cast Ulbrecht in the worst light possible before the trial begins. Because they're not actually at trial yet, they can ma
by lstyls 12y ago
The prosecution has every incentive to cast Ulbrecht in the worst light possible before the trial begins. Because they're not actually at trial yet, they can make claims that won't actually hold up to scrutiny in court. As others have already pointed out, if he really did order people's murders, wouldn't the prosecution indict him for it?
All that aside, it seems a big leap for Ulbrecht to make from online drug-deal middleman to someone calling out hits on people. He's not Don Corleone or Avon Barksdale, he's some tech kid with really poor judgement. I actually find the government's claim that he tried to hire an undercover as a hitman completely credible. It also seems to speak to the idea that he had no idea what he was doing and was completely out of his element.
- tptacek 12y agoI do not find the idea that some dude sitting on a mountain of Dunning-Krugerrands might write an email allocating some tiny percentage of them to the project of getting rid of someone inconvenient to his business. I would find the story less believable if it involved Ulbricht actually meeting some shadowy figure in the the parking lot of a Target or whatever. But nobody has alleged that he effectively ordered a killing; he appears to have just had a casual email exchange about it. The factual complexity of the murder narrative, and the degree of dedicated intent Ulbricht didn't pay to it, seems like good reason not to base the case against him on it.
- dietrichepp 12y ago> if he really did order people's murders, wouldn't the prosecution indict him for it? No, that's a non sequitur. For example, imagine that the prosecution knows that Alice killed Bob, but only because they were illegally tapping Alice's phone lines and the evidence would get thrown out. Or imagine that Alice is in the mafia, and your only witness, Charlie, suddenly went missing. > he's some tech kid with really poor judgement History is littered with people who went from "poor judgement" to "murder". To be clear, I'm not calling Ulbricht a murderer. I'm just not convinced that you know him so well that you know what he will and won't do.
- lstyls 12y agoI should clarify, I don't mean poor judgement in the "he's a good kid, he just had poor judgement" sense. He might be a terrible person for all I know. Heck, he probably is. And I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to murder people. I meant it in the sense that I don't think he is capable of finding someone willing and able.
- foldr 12y agoSurely that pretty much concedes that the prosecution are right. If he wants to kill people then he does pose a significant threat to the witnesses.
- tinco 12y agoIt seems a big leap to go from someone who orders a few murders over an anonymous web service paid for with digital currency to being a Don Corleone or Avon Barksdale. You make it seem like it's some big deal, you could/can literally order a murder in a few clicks on these black market sites.
- lstyls 12y ago> You make it seem like it's some big deal, you could/can literally order a murder in a few clicks on these black market sites. Please give an example of someone murdered by hire over the internet.
- foldr 12y agoEnough of the conspiracy theories, please. We already went through all this crap with Hans Reiser (another guy who suffered from "poor judgment"). I have no idea whether Ulbrecht is innocent or guilty, but the most probable reason for the judge's decision is a genuine concern for the witnesses' safety. It's easy to dismiss the risk when it's not your conscience. The judge is probably thinking "Hmm, he's probably not going to have these witnesses killed, but it's going to be a total shit show if he does, so lets err on the side of caution".